Oncologists and medical assistance in dying: where do we stand? Results of a national survey of Canadian oncologists.
Bill C-14
Medical assistance in dying
end-of-life care
maid
Journal
Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)
ISSN: 1718-7729
Titre abrégé: Curr Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9502503
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
entrez:
11
11
2020
pubmed:
12
11
2020
medline:
21
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In June 2016, when the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-14, the country joined the small number of jurisdictions that have legalized medical assistance in dying (maid). Since legalization, nearly 7000 Canadians have received maid, most of whom (65%) had an underlying diagnosis of cancer. Although Bill C-14 specifies the need for government oversight and monitoring of maid, the government-collected data to date have tracked patient characteristics, rather than clinician encounters and beliefs. We aimed to understand the views of Canadian oncologists 2 years after the legalization of maid. We developed and administered an online survey to medical and radiation oncologists to understand their exposure to maid, self-perceived knowledge, willingness to participate, and perception of the role of oncologists in introducing maid as an end-of-life care option. We used complete sampling through the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists and the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology membership e-mail lists. The survey was sent to 691 physicians: 366 radiation oncologists and 325 medical oncologists. Data were collected during March-June 2018. Results are presented using descriptive statistics and univariate or multivariate analysis. The survey attracted 224 responses (response rate: 32.4%). Of the responding oncologists, 70% have been approached by patients requesting maid. Oncologists were of mixed confidence in their knowledge of the eligibility criteria. Oncologists were most willing to engage in maid with an assessment for eligibility, and yet most refer to specialized teams for assessments. In terms of introducing maid as an end-of-life option, slightly more than half the responding physicians (52.8%) would initiate a conversation about maid with a patient under certain circumstances, most commonly the absence of viable therapeutic options, coupled with unmanageable patient distress. In this first national survey of Canadian oncologists about maid, we found that most respondents encounter patient requests for maid, are confident in their knowledge about eligibility, and are willing to act as assessors of eligibility. Many oncologists believe that, under some circumstances, it is appropriate to present maid as a therapeutic option at the end of life. That finding warrants further deliberation by national or regional bodies for the development of consensus guidelines to ensure equitable access to maid for patients who wish to pursue it.
Sections du résumé
Background
In June 2016, when the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-14, the country joined the small number of jurisdictions that have legalized medical assistance in dying (maid). Since legalization, nearly 7000 Canadians have received maid, most of whom (65%) had an underlying diagnosis of cancer. Although Bill C-14 specifies the need for government oversight and monitoring of maid, the government-collected data to date have tracked patient characteristics, rather than clinician encounters and beliefs. We aimed to understand the views of Canadian oncologists 2 years after the legalization of maid.
Methods
We developed and administered an online survey to medical and radiation oncologists to understand their exposure to maid, self-perceived knowledge, willingness to participate, and perception of the role of oncologists in introducing maid as an end-of-life care option. We used complete sampling through the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists and the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology membership e-mail lists. The survey was sent to 691 physicians: 366 radiation oncologists and 325 medical oncologists. Data were collected during March-June 2018. Results are presented using descriptive statistics and univariate or multivariate analysis.
Results
The survey attracted 224 responses (response rate: 32.4%). Of the responding oncologists, 70% have been approached by patients requesting maid. Oncologists were of mixed confidence in their knowledge of the eligibility criteria. Oncologists were most willing to engage in maid with an assessment for eligibility, and yet most refer to specialized teams for assessments. In terms of introducing maid as an end-of-life option, slightly more than half the responding physicians (52.8%) would initiate a conversation about maid with a patient under certain circumstances, most commonly the absence of viable therapeutic options, coupled with unmanageable patient distress.
Conclusions
In this first national survey of Canadian oncologists about maid, we found that most respondents encounter patient requests for maid, are confident in their knowledge about eligibility, and are willing to act as assessors of eligibility. Many oncologists believe that, under some circumstances, it is appropriate to present maid as a therapeutic option at the end of life. That finding warrants further deliberation by national or regional bodies for the development of consensus guidelines to ensure equitable access to maid for patients who wish to pursue it.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33173378
doi: 10.3747/co.27.6295
pii: conc-27-263
pmc: PMC7606035
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
263-269Informations de copyright
2020 Multimed Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none.
Références
J Med Ethics. 2017 Oct;43(10):666-669
pubmed: 28325745
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 19;372(12):1179-81
pubmed: 25776935
CMAJ. 2016 Dec 6;188(17-18):1214-1215
pubmed: 27754895
J Med Ethics. 2007 Oct;33(10):591-7
pubmed: 17906058
CMAJ. 2020 Feb 24;192(8):E173-E181
pubmed: 32051130
Res Nurs Health. 2006 Oct;29(5):489-97
pubmed: 16977646
Ann Intern Med. 2000 Oct 3;133(7):527-32
pubmed: 11015165
Nurs Res. 1986 Nov-Dec;35(6):382-5
pubmed: 3640358
CMAJ. 2008 Jul 29;179(3):245-52
pubmed: 18663204
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 May;66(2):156-61
pubmed: 17158015